A randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study on the efficacy of Omalizumab on food allergy threshold in children with severe food allergy.

BACKGROUND: Food allergy is common in childhood with some children having a low threshold and being difficult to protect from accidental ingestion of the offending food. Therapies for this potentially life-threatening condition are highly needed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of Omalizumab in food-allergic children. METHODS: This is a single-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Food allergic children with a cumulative threshold ≤443 mg food protein at DBPCFC were randomized to Omalizumab (asthma dose) or placebo (3:1). After 3 months, a second DBPCFC was performed (steps 3, 10, 30, 100, 300, 1000, and 3000 mg food protein), followed by a separate open challenge up to 10,000 and 30,000 mg food protein if negative. Responders were defined as ≥2-step increases in threshold. Non-responders received high-dose Omalizumab. A third DBPCFC was performed after 6 months. Skin testing, blood samples, and the severity of atopic co-morbidity were registered during the study and 3 months after treatment. RESULTS: In total, 20 children were evaluated at 3 months (14 Omalizumab, 6 placebo). All treated with Omalizumab increased their threshold at least two steps and with a significant difference between the Omalizumab and the placebo group (p = .003), although the intended number of included children was not reached. The threshold before Omalizumab treatment was 13-443 mg food protein while the threshold after 3 months of treatment increased up to 44,000 mg (1143-44,000). In the placebo group, two children improved threshold during the study. CONCLUSION: An increase in the threshold level during Omalizumab treatment significantly improve patient safety and protected all children against small amount of allergen.

Real-Life Adherence to Venom Immunotherapy and Adrenaline Autoinjector.

INTRODUCTION: Venom immunotherapy (VIT) and adrenaline autoinjector (AAI) are important therapies in venom anaphylaxis. Adherence to VIT and AAI in patients with venom allergy has been evaluated in a few studies; however, solid data are lacking. This study aimed to evaluate VIT and AAI retrieval rates in patients with venom allergy with a special focus on adherence to treatment. Adherence was compared to subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) with inhalant allergens. METHODS: This was a retrospective study among patients registered for allergen immunotherapy at the Allergy Center, Odense University Hospital, Denmark, from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2014. Data on purchased immunotherapy and AAI were obtained from the Danish National Health Service Prescription Database. Multivariable logistic regression was used to analyze if allergen, age, sex, mastocytosis, and treatment site affected adherence. RESULTS: The 3-year adherence to VIT was 92.4% (244/264) compared to 87.4% (215/246) in SCIT with inhalant allergens, and the 5-year adherence to VIT was 84.1% (222/264) compared to 74.8% (184/246) in SCIT with inhalant allergens (p = 0.045). Females treated with VIT were more adherent than males (p = 0.45 [3-year], p = 0.008 [5-year]), whereas allergen, age, mastocytosis, or treatment site did not significantly affect adherence. Only 28.6% of patients (12/42) purchased an AAI after premature termination of VIT. CONCLUSION: In this register-based study, we found that the 3- and 5-year adherences to VIT and SCIT with inhalant allergens are at the upper end of the spectrum hitherto reported. Patients' 5-year adherence to VIT was higher than patients' 5-year adherence to SCIT with inhalant allergens. If VIT was prematurely terminated, less than 1/3 would have purchased an AAI.

Adherence to adrenaline autoinjector prescriptions in patients with anaphylaxis.

This study evaluates adherence to adrenaline autoinjector prescriptions in a cohort of well-characterized anaphylaxis patients. The overall retrieval rate was 76% with the highest rate in patients with severe anaphylaxis. Special attention is needed in patients with unknown elicitors and in young adults, comprising the largest proportion of non-adherent patients. Trial registration No intervention performed. Retrospective data used with permission from the Danish Data Protection Agency and Regional Committees on Health Research Ethics.

Does lean muddy the quality improvement waters? A qualitative study of how a hospital management team understands lean in the context of quality improvement.

BACKGROUND: Health care has experimented with many different quality improvement (QI) approaches with greater variation in name than content. This has been dubbed pseudoinnovation. However, it could also be that the subtleties and differences are not clearly understood. To explore this further, the purpose of this study was to explore how hospital managers perceive lean in the context of QI. METHODS: We used a qualitative study design with semi-structured interviews to explore twelve top managers' perceptions of the relationship between lean and quality improvement (QI) at a university-affiliated hospital. RESULTS: Managers described that QI and lean shared the same overall purpose: focus on patient needs and improve efficiency and effectiveness. Employee involvement was emphasized in both strategies, as well as the support offered by managers of staff initiatives. QI was perceived as a strategy that could support structural changes at the organizational level whereas lean was seen as applicable at the operational level. Moreover, lean carried a negative connotation, lacked the credibility of QI, and was perceived as a management fad. CONCLUSIONS: Aspects of QI and lean were misunderstood. In a context where lean remains an abstract term, and staff associate lean with automotive applications and cost reduction, it may be fruitful for managers to invest time and resources to develop a strategy for continual improvement and utilize vocabulary that resonates with health care staff. This could reduce the risk that improvement efforts are rejected out of hand.